Below is an edited transcript of Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation speech, made this morning at Bute House. Coffee House readers may be interested to note that the words ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘my’ are used 153 times in the speech. ‘Scotland’ is only mentioned 11 times.
She was talking about her own resignation and the reasons for it, why wouldn't those words be used many more times? If she mentioned Scotland every other word it might have been a bit annoying. And did she use 'this country' or similar as well? I need more info.
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
Did you produce that from memory or do you have a list?
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
Did you produce that from memory or do you have a list?
It's be interesting to know if anything @Anabobazina uses is on his list ...
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
It is just debt you thick stupid incontinent idiot, debt from Westminster on stuff we do not want , ie paying for trident and other such Westminster shit , crossrail , HS2 etc.
Scotland is set to be the only part of Britain to benefit from HS2.
Under the Barnett formula, you will get the equivalent share of spending on HS2 in England and Wales to spend, and devolution ensures that you can spend it as you like in Scotland.
Wales misses out because HS2 is bizarrely deemed to be of benefit to parts of North Wales.
HS2 provides a very good argument for equivalent regional devolution to the rest of England. If a North West Regional Assembly had been given the choice of deciding whether to extend HS2 to Manchester or otherwise to invest £30bn (or whatever the equivalent figure is) on a series of other capital investment projects in the North West, it's pretty obvious what the choice would have been.
I actually think HS2 is an argument against that kind of devolution. I'd much rather these huge chunks of cash were used for coherent UK-wide projects, and the consequential to Scotland had been used instead for a high speed link to Glasgow.
This would be the case even in an indy Scotland - I'd want us to contribute to and be part of RUK or European mega projects (particularly offshore wind).
Gosh, you've got it in for Sturgeon, haven't you? Even on the day of her demise your guns are still blazing.
I read that Kate Forbes is opposed to abortion due to her religious beliefs. I assume that if she becomes a serious contender you and others will warn of the potential threat to women's rights arising from her views.
Thank your lucky stars, at least it gives Carlotta the Transpotter something different to spam the site with. For now.
Just wait till she gets onto the Scottish Greens and Scottish Labour. And Mrs May.
Did someone not tell Carlotta that Sturgeon has already decided to go ? She's making Scott look like a very occasional Twitter user this afternoon.
Having been told for months that it’s a non issue that nobody cares about, I’m rather enjoying myself….and Sturgeon’s attempt at rewriting her legacy is hilarious…
The bad news is that Sturgeon intends to remain in power throughout the process of choosing her successor. Which will be decided through the SNP's electronic voting process that is absolutely non transparent to candidates, and will be controlled by Peter Murrell.
If voting is run by Murrel's and cronies then the fix will be Macbeth for sure. They like where only he announces the winner and no-one allowed to see voting records.
I'm lost - is Macbeth Robertson because of the Moray connection?
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
Did you produce that from memory or do you have a list?
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
•Anabobazina's shit list.
As current champ I’d expect you to show more respect!
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
It is just debt you thick stupid incontinent idiot, debt from Westminster on stuff we do not want , ie paying for trident and other such Westminster shit , crossrail , HS2 etc.
Scotland is set to be the only part of Britain to benefit from HS2.
Under the Barnett formula, you will get the equivalent share of spending on HS2 in England and Wales to spend, and devolution ensures that you can spend it as you like in Scotland.
Wales misses out because HS2 is bizarrely deemed to be of benefit to parts of North Wales.
HS2 provides a very good argument for equivalent regional devolution to the rest of England. If a North West Regional Assembly had been given the choice of deciding whether to extend HS2 to Manchester or otherwise to invest £30bn (or whatever the equivalent figure is) on a series of other capital investment projects in the North West, it's pretty obvious what the choice would have been.
I actually think HS2 is an argument against that kind of devolution. I'd much rather these huge chunks of cash were used for coherent UK-wide projects, and the consequential to Scotland had been used instead for a high speed link to Glasgow.
This would be the case even in an indy Scotland - I'd want us to contribute to and be part of RUK or European mega projects (particularly offshore wind).
I recall someone proposing for planning reform that there should be a lot more local control devolved, even to the point of requiring localised polls etc, but the tradeoff was that for big, significant projects the ability to hold up and legally challenge was severely reduced.
I actually think a lot of people would go for that, since the chances of a new housing estate of 50 houses being nearby is a lot higher, for most people, than another runway being planned nearby.
Gosh, you've got it in for Sturgeon, haven't you? Even on the day of her demise your guns are still blazing.
I read that Kate Forbes is opposed to abortion due to her religious beliefs. I assume that if she becomes a serious contender you and others will warn of the potential threat to women's rights arising from her views.
(S)he definitely won’t be voting for her, nor anyone else north of Gretna for that matter.
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
Someone should do a corpus comparison of PB Vanilla threads to some benchmark lexical probabilities set.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
You must be a big fan of Niger. Strangely, I doubt they have the best government.
Today explained in a few tweets. It was an astonishing achievement for Sturgeon to persuade a lot of (admittedly very gullible) people that there was still a reasonably possible chance of an early second referendum. She ran out of road on that.…
What lay ahead was a series of retreats and humiliations. De facto no more; DRS no more; GRRB no more; Coalition no more. So walking away makes good sense...
Not just for her personally but for a successor to portray themselves as a fresh start. If somebody else, somehow, keeps the plates spinning she gets to play elder statesperson. If not, electoral disaster ahead is not her legacy. At least in theory.
Nobody in the Labour Party or the press saw the scale of 2015 coming until very late on but FPTP can deliver this kind of result. If it looks like a Labour landslide and no 2nd referendum any time soon, what is the point of voting SNP in 2025?
Below is an edited transcript of Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation speech, made this morning at Bute House. Coffee House readers may be interested to note that the words ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘my’ are used 153 times in the speech. ‘Scotland’ is only mentioned 11 times.
She was talking about her own resignation and the reasons for it, why wouldn't those words be used many more times? If she mentioned Scotland every other word it might have been a bit annoying. And did she use 'this country' or similar as well? I need more info.
You can guarantee excessive use of “Scotland’ would have produced loud screeching of ‘THE SNP ARE NOT SCOTLAND!!’ from precisely the same people.
Gosh, you've got it in for Sturgeon, haven't you? Even on the day of her demise your guns are still blazing.
I read that Kate Forbes is opposed to abortion due to her religious beliefs. I assume that if she becomes a serious contender you and others will warn of the potential threat to women's rights arising from her views.
(S)he definitely won’t be voting for her, nor anyone else north of Gretna for that matter.
Who needs a vote when you have JK Rowling?
Or to pay Scottish, and indeed UK, taxes when you can comment on UK politics?
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
She would probably fuck it up, through being too young, and a new mother, and then not get a second chance
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
Katie Forbes: don’t do it. Wait
I think it's going to have to be Robertson. Flynn and Cherry are in Westminster (and Cherry is as likely to get it as I am anyway). Forbes is far too young, and I don't just say that because she's younger than I am. Swinney would make Gavin Williamson look talented. Humza Yusuf is like Rees-Mogg without the occasional charm.
Robertson is about the only one who has the experience, the skills and the location to do the job.
Bearing in mind, even if the SNP do a Plaid and elect a leader at Westminster, they're still going to have to find a FM at Holyrood. Unless the cunning plan is to refuse to nominate one in order to force an election but surely even the SNP aren't that far gone.
Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?
This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.
SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.
So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.
In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.
Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
From Angus Macneil’s motion:
Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:
1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;
2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;
3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]
Hmm, interesting. 2 wouldn't be up to the SNP. 3 would also need another party to vote for it, so not a SNP thing except insofar as getting all the SNP MSPs to vote that way would. Not sure about 1.
Carnyx 1.works as SNP do not put up a candidate and no-one else can win a vote for their candidates so ends up after a few go's in an election 2. Can work if green's support SNP and 3. is just a vote on amendment bill which again they win easily with greens
The takes that this is great news for the Union etc seem a bit premature.
I suspect that at some level Sturgeon had become a net weight on independence sentiment.
If the next SNP leader and FM is anti homosexual marriage, as looks likely, that could be an even bigger boost for Unionists than Sturgeon's gender bill.
The SNP will just have gone from one extreme to the other!!
I don’t think Kate Forbes will go for it. But *if* she does, and wins, she presents as the SNP’s best chance of a generational re-set.
The Wee Free stuff is a side-show.
I simply don’t see how you can be a competent first minister and a new mother age 32. It’s physically and emotionally impossible
She’s an interesting politician and would possibly make a great Nit leader - and a real threat to the union - in the 2030s
Some very young figures manage to lead countries - Kurtz in Austria, Marin in Finland, though if they were actually different to the usual 50 year old duffers, for better or worse, I could not say.
Were they mothers of tiny babies? I don’t think so
No, but if you're a hard nosed political operative willing to prioritise the job that's not a barrier in itself. It's a fair question if they would.
30 ish feels too young, but an exceptional person could do it.
She would probably fuck it up, through being too young, and a new mother, and then not get a second chance
That would be a shame. She seems interesting and talented. I felt the same about William Hague. He went for the top job ten years too soon. He’s a smart, eloquent, likeable character, with real wisdom and insight. He could have been a good even great prime minister - it should have been him elected as PM in 2010 not the foolish posho narcissist Cameron
Katie Forbes: don’t do it. Wait
I think it's going to have to be Robertson. Flynn and Cherry are in Westminster (and Cherry is as likely to get it as I am anyway). Forbes is far too young, and I don't just say that because she's younger than I am. Swinney would make Gavin Williamson look talented. Humza Yusuf is like Rees-Mogg without the occasional charm.
Robertson is about the only one who has the experience, the skills and the location to do the job.
Bearing in mind, even if the SNP do a Plaid and elect a leader at Westminster, they're still going to have to find a FM at Holyrood. Unless the cunning plan is to refuse to nominate one in order to force an election but surely even the SNP aren't that far gone.
Yes, my bet is Robertson. Competent and capable. Not going to set the heather on fire but that’s not what the SNP need right now. Indy is off the agenda for the foreseeable. That’s why sturgeon has gone. They need someone to sensibly manage the front of the house while they get new chefs with new recipes
An interesting problem. Do the SNP want charisma or a steady hand?
This depends on other things. Let us assume that the long term political fight in Scotland is in fact Nat v Union. For this to be an equal fight with quasi FPTP+ this needs really to be SNP v Labour, with everyone else on the fringe.
SFAICS only Forbes has what you might call natural advantages - young, easy on the eye, doesn't look like Salmond or fish of any kind, girl next door, Europe's best university, baby that looks like a baby, there is no-one on earth who could exclude the possibility of voting for her. OTOH the Nats cause in in fact going nowhere because Westminster, the King, Scotland and awkward post-Brexit reality all don't want it.
So the realistic thing is to have someone who can match SKS in the Boreathon tedium stakes and keep on keeping on going, at the same time assisting a Labour government, which when it happens will make the Scots even more certain to keep the Union.
In that second regard - unrelatable uncharismatic dull candidates - they might as well throw cards into a top hat and pick a winner. There is a Grand National field of bores out there.
Don’t forget the Special Conference on 19 March, which could mandate a policy of changing the Holyrood rules to allow collapsing the government and then triggering an immediate election (unlikely I know, but in a grassroots revolutionary fervour…)
No, that's reserved to Westminster. Best you could do would be an election only of MSPs for the next FM, and you'd end up with Mr Sarwar becoming FM after promising the Greens lots of insulation and trans stuff.
From Angus Macneil’s motion:
Conference also notes that there are three ways to trigger an early Holyrood Election:
1. Resignation of First Minister to trigger – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;
2. Two thirds of the current MSPs voting to dissolve Parliament – as per The 1998 Scotland Act;
3. Amending the standing orders or legislation using Scotland Act 2016 [Sec3] to cause an election by simple majority- as per The 2016 Scotland Act [Sec3(1)(a)]
Hmm, interesting. 2 wouldn't be up to the SNP. 3 would also need another party to vote for it, so not a SNP thing except insofar as getting all the SNP MSPs to vote that way would. Not sure about 1.
The first only applies if no one is nominated as First Minister by the Scottish Parliament within 28 days after the resignation. Quite a drawn out process.
Rob, where you been , Tories can amange multiple PM's in that timescale
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
It is just debt you thick stupid incontinent idiot, debt from Westminster on stuff we do not want , ie paying for trident and other such Westminster shit , crossrail , HS2 etc.
Scotland is set to be the only part of Britain to benefit from HS2.
Under the Barnett formula, you will get the equivalent share of spending on HS2 in England and Wales to spend, and devolution ensures that you can spend it as you like in Scotland.
Wales misses out because HS2 is bizarrely deemed to be of benefit to parts of North Wales.
HS2 provides a very good argument for equivalent regional devolution to the rest of England. If a North West Regional Assembly had been given the choice of deciding whether to extend HS2 to Manchester or otherwise to invest £30bn (or whatever the equivalent figure is) on a series of other capital investment projects in the North West, it's pretty obvious what the choice would have been.
I actually think HS2 is an argument against that kind of devolution. I'd much rather these huge chunks of cash were used for coherent UK-wide projects, and the consequential to Scotland had been used instead for a high speed link to Glasgow.
This would be the case even in an indy Scotland - I'd want us to contribute to and be part of RUK or European mega projects (particularly offshore wind).
I recall someone proposing for planning reform that there should be a lot more local control devolved, even to the point of requiring localised polls etc, but the tradeoff was that for big, significant projects the ability to hold up and legally challenge was severely reduced.
I actually think a lot of people would go for that, since the chances of a new housing estate of 50 houses being nearby is a lot higher, for most people, than another runway being planned nearby.
A bit like France, then. Local mairie decides on small scale planning but we’re talking mairies for communes of 500 or fewer people, where everyone knows everyone. But if the President de la république wants to build a TGV line through the area, well in it goes.
Did someone not tell Carlotta that Sturgeon has already decided to go ? She's making Scott look like a very occasional Twitter user this afternoon.
Having been told for months that it’s a non issue that nobody cares about, I’m rather enjoying myself….and Sturgeon’s attempt at rewriting her legacy is hilarious…
I heard a snippet of her resignation speech on the news - complaining that 'issues that really shouldn't become controversial rapidly become so'. Which suggests to me she genuinely thought she was not only doing the right thing, but had no inkling it might not be popular. She has spent so long in the bubble that it no longer really occurred to her that the proposition that a man can become a woman just be declaring it so might not be supported by the majority of people.
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
To add as some class of an appendix to the cliché list: Trains, Pineapple on pizza, Radiohead, Eighties synthpop, Oxbridge, House price crash now, and a range of concepts beyond my ken from a certain genre of direct-to-VHS movies.
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
It is just debt you thick stupid incontinent idiot, debt from Westminster on stuff we do not want , ie paying for trident and other such Westminster shit , crossrail , HS2 etc.
Scotland is set to be the only part of Britain to benefit from HS2.
Under the Barnett formula, you will get the equivalent share of spending on HS2 in England and Wales to spend, and devolution ensures that you can spend it as you like in Scotland.
Wales misses out because HS2 is bizarrely deemed to be of benefit to parts of North Wales.
HS2 provides a very good argument for equivalent regional devolution to the rest of England. If a North West Regional Assembly had been given the choice of deciding whether to extend HS2 to Manchester or otherwise to invest £30bn (or whatever the equivalent figure is) on a series of other capital investment projects in the North West, it's pretty obvious what the choice would have been.
I actually think HS2 is an argument against that kind of devolution. I'd much rather these huge chunks of cash were used for coherent UK-wide projects, and the consequential to Scotland had been used instead for a high speed link to Glasgow.
This would be the case even in an indy Scotland - I'd want us to contribute to and be part of RUK or European mega projects (particularly offshore wind).
Bollocks anyway , it was said it was a benefit to Scotland and we will see the square root of F all for it. It si treated as an England & Wales project and so does not count. Similar to many of the large south east projects.
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
All.her policies were designed to.piss off London. Now London can tell her to piss off..permanently. it was all politics never about Scotland.. eg the ludicrous transgender policy...
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
Theresa May's resigntion speech took less than 7 minutes. Boris Johnson's resignation announcement was less than 8 minutes. Liz Truss took less than 2 minutes. Sturgeon's lasted almost 40 minutes. That tells you all you need to know.
About their relative substance and stature? ... Yep.
I don't get the love for Sturgeon from lefties from England. Scotland has got worse by almost every measure since she's been in power. Economy, health, education - all have gone backwards relative to England's. There have, I suppose, been some positives in public transport (rail reopenings etc) but as against that: ferries. And I think Scotland's rail network has been more stricken by strikes than England's? She's raised taxes, but that is surely only the meams, not the end in itself. And she was bloody awful with covid - antagonistic purely for the sake of driving wedges with England, delusional over zero covid, rubbish over vaccinations. I can only assume it's the enemy-of-my-enemy principle.
She's a brave and capable politician who shares (most of) my worldview and values. It'd be a bit odd if I didn't like her. But, ok, does the fact she's become a hate figure for the right down here add to the appeal? Being truthful, yes it does.
She's not really making a practical case for those values though, is she? Her defining mission was to chisel away the disadvantage of being poor - yet the poor are no better educated, are dying younger, are seeing no new opportunities. I could see the merits for all that extra taxation (/subsidy from England) if it led to Scotland being like Copenhagen. But that hasn't really happened. What has all the money been spent on?
I don't follow Scottish economic data so I can't opine on how fair that assessment is. The gender reforms I did follow though and that's a great example of fighting for progressive values imo. Against populist opposition too. Not driven by polls and focus groups. Not pandering to opinion but trying to lead it. Hats off at my gaff for this.
It is the verbal diahorrea of a babbling fool who has no clue. free university, free prescriptions , extra 25 pounds for poor children , extra to combat spare room tax and not a subsidy in sight, all bought and paid for by Scotland and we have to pay Westmister's borrowing costs as well.
Not a subsidy in sight? There's a 12% deficit by the SNP Government's own figures!
It is just debt you thick stupid incontinent idiot, debt from Westminster on stuff we do not want , ie paying for trident and other such Westminster shit , crossrail , HS2 etc.
Scotland is set to be the only part of Britain to benefit from HS2.
Under the Barnett formula, you will get the equivalent share of spending on HS2 in England and Wales to spend, and devolution ensures that you can spend it as you like in Scotland.
Wales misses out because HS2 is bizarrely deemed to be of benefit to parts of North Wales.
HS2 provides a very good argument for equivalent regional devolution to the rest of England. If a North West Regional Assembly had been given the choice of deciding whether to extend HS2 to Manchester or otherwise to invest £30bn (or whatever the equivalent figure is) on a series of other capital investment projects in the North West, it's pretty obvious what the choice would have been.
I actually think HS2 is an argument against that kind of devolution. I'd much rather these huge chunks of cash were used for coherent UK-wide projects, and the consequential to Scotland had been used instead for a high speed link to Glasgow.
This would be the case even in an indy Scotland - I'd want us to contribute to and be part of RUK or European mega projects (particularly offshore wind).
I recall someone proposing for planning reform that there should be a lot more local control devolved, even to the point of requiring localised polls etc, but the tradeoff was that for big, significant projects the ability to hold up and legally challenge was severely reduced.
I actually think a lot of people would go for that, since the chances of a new housing estate of 50 houses being nearby is a lot higher, for most people, than another runway being planned nearby.
A bit like France, then. Local mairie decides on small scale planning but we’re talking mairies for communes of 500 or fewer people, where everyone knows everyone. But if the President de la république wants to build a TGV line through the area, well in it goes.
From one perspective, that's where the 2016 thing broke down.
Local government in most of England is a hopeless dismal thing. Somewhere like Havering feels alienated from London, but also from itself. We have three proper towns and assorted remote settlements that don't really mesh together after more than 50 years as a unit.
And one way to understand the urge to "take back control" is because neighbourhoods and towns want to control themselves more. And pulling powers back from Brussels to Westminster helps a bit with that, but not really.
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government.
• Heavy lifting • Colour me … • IANAE/IANAL • Feature, not a bug • Ad hom • This • It’s a view • North of (to mean more than) • As I’ve said passim • One of those irregular verbs • Late of this parish • Nail. Head. • Unspoofable • …. (four dot ellipsis) • Living rent free in x’s heads
•Anabobazina's shit list.
As current champ I’d expect you to show more respect!
Do you have the metrics for that claim, or is it just you bullshitting?
Comments
This would be the case even in an indy Scotland - I'd want us to contribute to and be part of RUK or European mega projects (particularly offshore wind).
Ipsos net satisfaction, 20 months before elections in May 1997 and possibly Oct 2024: big difference is rating for opposition leader https://ipsos.com/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1988-1997 https://ipsos.com/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1997-present
Image
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1625776125438840833
I actually think a lot of people would go for that, since the chances of a new housing estate of 50 houses being nearby is a lot higher, for most people, than another runway being planned nearby.
Who needs a vote when you have JK Rowling?
1.works as SNP do not put up a candidate and no-one else can win a vote
for their candidates so ends up after a few go's in an election
2. Can work if green's support SNP and
3. is just a vote on amendment bill which again they win easily with greens
Which suggests to me she genuinely thought she was not only doing the right thing, but had no inkling it might not be popular. She has spent so long in the bubble that it no longer really occurred to her that the proposition that a man can become a woman just be declaring it so might not be supported by the majority of people.
In other news
Trains, Pineapple on pizza, Radiohead, Eighties synthpop, Oxbridge, House price crash now, and a range of concepts beyond my ken from a certain genre of direct-to-VHS movies.
It is entirely possible to believe that, for example, South Korea needs a higher fertility rate, and Niger a lower rate. As I do.
(Lee Kuan Yew, early in his career, thought the fertility rate in Singapore was too high, and tried to lower it, with success, as he saw it. But then it kept declining, and his government made efforts to increase it, without much success. It is still far below 2.1, though rising slightly, in recent years: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/fertility-rate#:~:text=The fertility rate for Singapore,a 0.58% increase from 2019. )
Local government in most of England is a hopeless dismal thing. Somewhere like Havering feels alienated from London, but also from itself. We have three proper towns and assorted remote settlements that don't really mesh together after more than 50 years as a unit.
And one way to understand the urge to "take back control" is because neighbourhoods and towns want to control themselves more. And pulling powers back from Brussels to Westminster helps a bit with that, but not really.
NEW THREAD